trate, move, and soften, more than all the reasoning and earnestness which I have hitherto used.

1 would willingly try this experiment of transposition upon a late transaction, wherein some people's opinions seem to be affected by locality. Certain letters (see Letters of Governour Hutchinson, &c.,) have been published of an American Governour and Lieutenant-Governour, and a third person, together with remarks, and the speech of a learned and ingenious gentleman. These are offered as an appeal to the publick against the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. They cannot, therefore, but be themselves likewise the objects of a publick consideration. I have, by the touchstone of locality, a mind to examine and question some of this learned gentleman's reasoning. It is now but between eighty and ninety years since we of this country banished our King. On what ground did we do it? It will be answered, that we did not like his actions; for that they tended to deprive us of our best rights and properties. That we did it as Englishmen, on the Constitution of England. Who was the common judge between us and him? There was no such common judge. We judged for ourselves. He was our King, our Magistrate, our Trustee. When we found him to fail in the essential points of these offices, we took another. This was our right, as Englishmen, but we set aside one of his daughters from her turn in the succession, and appointed instead, a person who had no title by birth. The King's horse threw him, and the Lady succeeded. But that was chance. It might in a course of nature, very well have happened, that she had never been Queen. What had she done? She had taken a remarkable part in the Revolution, and was totally unexceptionable. But there were in one scale the welfare and happiness of many millions of people, and in the other the advancement of only one Lady, although a deserving one. There was therefore no equality; the latter could not but kick the beam. I answer, that I subscribe to all this with my hand and my heart. But it is only one side of the medal. Let us turn the reverse. An American Governour is not so big as a King; he don't wear a Crown, nor bear a Sceptre, nor sit on a Throne, nor is worshipped on the knee, nor has a Navy, nor an Army, nor makes Bishops, nor Judges, nor is his Civil List perhaps above a thousand Pounds a year. He seems to be much more responsible, and more removable, than a King. Suppose then, that one of our Colonies should take the strongest exceptions to their Governour, and desire to change him; would they in that case be permitted to judge for themselves? No. Why not? Because they are Americans. Who are to judge for them? We. Why so? Because we are Englishmen. But would their application be to us a sufficient cause for a removal? Perhaps not; but on the contrary, a reason to continue him at present, and to promote and advance him afterwards. That has been the case before, and may probably be so again. But why is the measure which we mete to them, so different from that which we measure to ourselves? That has been already answered. Because we are Englishmen, and they are Americans. This must be owned to be perfectly just and satisfactory, and the Americans are the most unreasonable men in the world, if they don't see it exactly in the same light.

But suppose that the representative body of the Province should make the complaint? The answer would then be, that there was no accuser, or if any one chose to speak Latin, no delator. Suppose that they complain of falsehood and treachery towards the Province? That would be no charge, no crimen. Suppose that they gave in evidence the party's own letters? That would complete the thing; for there would then be no evidence, no testis. Nil horum. But will this hold water? Admirably, with respect to America, and in Latin.

It is strongly disputed, whether these American letters are of a publick or a private nature. This may not in itself be a very important point. However, let us endeavour to settle it, since it lies in our way. Whatever concerns and affects the interests, the welfare and happiness of a whole people is, and must be, of a publick nature, whether papers, letters, or any other thing whatsoever. Good and evil are not matters of law or of logick. They are the most, if not the only essential circumstances of the world. They are what every thing else refers to, they stamp an eternal mark and difference on all things, which even imagination cannot cancel or erase. The enjoyment of the one, and the avoiding of the other, is the very end of our being, and likewise of all the beings which do, or which even can be supposed to exist, and which have a sense and perception of them. Whatever therefore relates to the general good and evil of a people, is of a publick nature. It is that circumstance which makes it so. The terms are as good as synonymous. Whatever concerns, on the contrary, only this or that individual, is of a private nature; it is confined to his or their happiness or welfare, to his or their good and evil. There is again the true and unerring criterion. These things seem clear to the greatest degree of intuitive certainty. It is strange to be forced to reason about them. However, we are told otherwise. If some compliments happen in a letter to be made to an old lady, it changes the essence of every thing; she contracts and confines the whole matter, and all becomes of a private nature; although the chief subject of that Very letter should be to advise and point out the means of altering the Charter, and of new-modelling the Constitution of a Colony, and that there should be recommended therein the finding some way, according to its own language," to take off the original incendiaries, "lest they should" continue to instil their poison into the minds of the people; "but the mention of the old lady makes it all private. (See Mr. Wedderburn's Speech, page 94, and Letter of Mr. A. Oliver, February 13, 1769.) But suppose that these letters were really meant and intended to produce publick effects; what will that do? Nothing at all. If the person had not at that moment a place, to whom they were written, it signifies nothing; although he might have had a post before, and might look for one again, and although he might have communicated these letters to others for the very purpose of affecting the publick. All this will be of no importance, if the person did not happen to have a place at the time. Would not one be tempted to think, that as some endeavour to leave no property in America, others have a mind to banish all human reason out of American affairs?

But let us take this matter in another light: Suppose a Prince to have been the subject of these letters instead of a People, and his conduct and character to have therein been so freely treated and censured instead of theirs, and the divesting him of his power and dignity so plainly mentioned and recommended, instead of the depriving them of their rights and privileges, and the taking him off proposed instead of the taking off some of them, what would have been the consequence? High Treason. But might not these have been private letters of friendship, and the receiver have secreted and concealed them? There is no such thing as private letters in the case. No civilities sent to the fairest lady in the land can make them so. The person receiving must, at his own peril, carry them to a Secretary of State, or to a Justice of the Peace, or to some other Magistrate; we don't otherwise want a word for him, which is misprision of treason. But who would take notice of such a thing? Let Mr. Attorney or Mr. Solicitor answer that. But on what ground is all this? Because the Prince is supposed to be the publick person, and to represent the whole people, and that what relates to him may affect them. But there are bad Princes; and writing against them is sometimes writing in support and in the interests of the publick and of the people; no such plea or proposition is ever suffered; it would, on the contrary, be an additional crime even to make or to offer it. But does any one by representing a body, acquire more prerogatives than belong to that body itself; or are the publick more affected through a third person than immediately in themselves? Yes, just so. Say a word against a Prince, and beware of informations, indictments, fines, prisons, scaffolds, and gibbets. These are the strongest arguments in the world, and I never knew any man to get the better in disputing with them. But abuse a people from morning till night, and every one knows that the rule and the law is, let them mend their manners, if it is true; let them despise it, and leave it to fall on the author if it is false; I am at the feet of Gamaliel, and desire only to learn. I shall not contradict the doctrine concerning a Prince, and I subscribe heartily to that about a People. Should these Commonwealths of America ever become as strong and